Reproducible scientific results are not always true and true scientific results are not always reproducible, according to a mathematical model produced by University of Idaho researchers. Their study, which simulates the search for that scientific truth, will be published Wednesday, May 15, in the journal PLOS ONE.

...

Within the model, the rate of reproducibility did not always correlate with the probability of identifying the truth, how fast the community identified the truth and whether the community stuck with the truth once they identified it. These findings indicate reproducible results are not synonymous with finding the truth, Devezer said.

Compared to other research strategies, highly innovative research tactics resulted in a quicker discovery of the truth. According to the study, a diversity of research strategies protected against ineffective research approaches and optimized desirable aspects of the scientific process.

Claims to be a working permanent magnet (only) motor. Claims not to be a perpetual motion machine because "the magnets eventually wear out" and have to be recharged. They imply it runs on the energy "stored in the magnets" but magnets store very little energy, even massively powerful magnets. Anyway, why not use some of the electrical energy it "produces" to recharge the magnets, the it would be perpetual motion.

You just have to listen to the inventor Dennis Danzik to get the measure of it.

"The Earth Engine utilizes the ‘push’ created between two opposing permanent magnets to drive large flywheels to create mechanical power. Crystal is designed solely as a demonstration Engine to demonstrate the attenuation of two opposing magnetic fields ‘pushing’ a heavy flywheel to create power to drive a generator. "

For more than 70 years, legendary physicist Sir Ernest Rutherford (1871-1937) had been mistakenly credited by most organizations and many scholars for accomplishing the world’s first confirmed artificial transmutation of one element into another. The Nobel Foundation, through its Nobel Prize Web site, was one of the organizations that had credited the discovery to Rutherford rather than the actual discoverer, Patrick Blackett.

I stumbled on this historical discrepancy in 2014 while I was writing my book Lost History. At the time, every Internet reference I found, as well as most print references, said that Rutherford was the one who had performed and reported this experiment.

The misunderstanding goes back many decades. Even some people close to Rutherford were mistaken. In a letter written in 1988, Irish physicist Ernest Thomas Sinton Walton (1903-1995) described his days working in Rutherford’s lab. He spoke about Rutherford’s “two greatest discoveries: the nuclear structure of atoms, and the transmutation of nitrogen into oxygen.”

I don't think this has been posted before. I hope it won't induce seizures in JedRothwell
. I am not sure the best thread for discussing it. I am only providing the link, not endorsing the work. Yet. I am told the author received his undergraduate training at Harvard in physics and math and has a PhD in physics from UC Berkeley. I did not verify this information.